Reply
Thu 19 Aug, 2004 09:04 pm
Kerry Calls Ad Group a 'Front for the Bush Campaign'
By JODI WILGOREN
Published: August 20, 2004
BOSTON, Aug. 19 - Escalating the debate over attacks on his military record by a Republican-financed group of Vietnam veterans, Senator John Kerry on Thursday called the group "a front for the Bush campaign."
"The fact that the president won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything that you need to know-he wants them to do his dirty work," Mr. Kerry said at a firefighters' convention in Boston. "The president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that."
Contrasting his own combat tour with Mr. Bush's stateside stint in the Texas Air National Guard, Mr. Kerry returned to a refrain from last fall: "If he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."
The personal pushback from Mr. Kerry, which some in his camp have been pressing for since the veterans group broadcast an attack ad two weeks ago, was accompanied by a new television spot featuring the man he rescued from the Mekong River during the war.
The sudden shift of attention by Mr. Kerry to an issue that has been simmering for weeks illustrates what has been a critical dynamic in this campaign from the start: Mr. Kerry's ability to invoke his combat experience to challenge President Bush on issues of national security. Even Democrats say that Mr. Kerry has little chance of defeating Mr. Bush if he cannot present himself as a credible wartime president, and the attacks on Mr. Kerry's war experience go to the heart of that appeal.
A new CBS News polls shows that Mr. Kerry's support among veterans has slipped since the Democratic convention. Shortly after he accepted the nomination, he was tied with Mr. Bush among veterans at 46 percent, but the poll shows Mr. Bush well ahead, 55 percent to 37 percent.
Mr. Kerry has vowed not to follow the example of the last Democratic presidential contender from Massachusetts, Michael S. Dukakis, who failed to respond to attacks, but he was slow to swing back. That changed with Mr. Kerry's fierce response on Thursday, which seemed to embolden him even hours later, when he took an uncharacteristic swipe at the president.
At a neighborhood meeting in Derry, N.H., Mr. Kerry told a fellow Yale graduate ashamed that Mr. Bush shared their alma mater, "Well, you and I attended classes."
The Dems are sitting there with copies of Chris Matthew's book, Hardball and reacting exactly how he says they should. "Answer every charge" was the lesson they learned from the Dukakis loss.
The problem is that, yes, you do answer every charge when your opponent makes it. Bush 41 was behind the efforts to paint Dukakis as a liberal and Dukakis did little to counter it. This time, however, Bush 43 is not behind the efforts.
So, Kerry opens himself up to the validity of the charges now by answering them. Of course his alternative was not much better. His problem is that he is guilty of what they're charging him. Too bad, so sad.
Quote: This time, however, Bush 43 is not behind the efforts.
Hogpoop. O'Neil has been a republican stooge since he started stooging for Nixon. If Bush is uninvolved/uninterested in the matter, he can gather up his principles and speak with the moral clarity of John McCain.
Is the SV group any better then Moveon.org? They are being funded by George Soros, who funds many anti-american leftist groups, like ANWSER. How is his support any different, and how can it be justified?
You been smokin' that sh*t again, Mr. Mountie?
baldimo
Read what John McCain has to say about O'Neil.
If I say it correctly, Dubya is the nickname of Bush. Why? What does it mean? (I know, off topic ...)
Remember: If you speak the alphabetic character W in english, you will be know it why. ;-)
Maybe not in English Thok but in Texanese.
well, yes. But it is still nearly the same. :-)
This sleazy attempt to smear Kerry has Karl Rove written all over it. The ad was financed by his good buddy in Texas. The White House refuses to denounce the ad. Pretty clear to me who is behind the ad.
This is entirely between the Swift Vets and Kerry.
It's personal, because of what he claims to be, but isn't.
The Swifties will handle Kerry and they are doing a fine job so far, all Kerry has done is attacked Bush, he's answered nothing to charges of the swifties and he has avoided it about as long as he can.
If he did get JohnLehman to change the wording for his silver star in the 80's he's toast.
The guy might have a shred of credibility if he had said the same thing about MoveOn.Org and Michael Moore a year ago. But alas, Kerry once again proves he is one pathetic creature.
I seem to remember Kerry saying "Bring it on".
Now that it has been "brought on" he cant stand the heat.
Brand X wrote:This is entirely between the Swift Vets and Kerry.
It's personal, because of what he claims to be, but isn't.
The Swifties will handle Kerry and they are doing a fine job so far, all Kerry has done is attacked Bush, he's answered nothing to charges of the swifties and he has avoided it about as long as he can.
Actually, he's done more than that. He's posted his records on his web site for all to see. As far as the swifties go, I would like to see some evidence of their allegations other than word of mouth. Chris Matthews tore one of them apart last night on Hardball -- it wasn't pretty. The thing that keeps coming up is that they are all upset that he came back and testified in front of Congress to atrocities in Vietnam, and that's a lot different from actual leadership in combat.
The swifties have plenty of money from their Texan contributor, if there were any actual evidence, they would have dug it up by now.
Are you referring to a O'Neill/Matthew's replay?
Brand X wrote:Are you referring to a O'Neill/Matthew's replay?
No, I'm referring to the guy who got a medal at the same time as Kerry who says there was no enemy fire -- can't remember his name. I'll try to find a transcript.
Here's the transcript to last night's Hardball.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5765243/
Read it, that was a good line of questioning, I wish someone in the media would pin Kerry down with some direct questions.
I don't understand why Matthew's turned the interview into a campaign analysis toward the end with Thurlow though.
Because, now that Thurlow been exposed as another old fart with a lousy memory, or convenient as the case may be, and an axe to grind over what he thought about Kerry's actions AFTER his service, it remains for Matthews to ask the question: whether this and other grousers ought to have any influence in the most important election of this country's history.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace